We hear cries of
“another Munich” with very little provocation: it’s
the War Party’s pat response to any attempt to negotiate or
otherwise engage our alleged enemies. It was a favorite
neoconservative trope during the cold war era, one that greeted
every diplomatic approach to the reds, from Nixon’s China
trip to Reagan at Reykjavik. This analogy persisted long after the
Soviets landed in history’s dustbin: indeed, its use has
increased over the years, with every Enemy of the Moment, from Slobodan
Milosevic to Saddam Hussein, routinely likened to Hitler and
the Nazis. With the Israelis conjuring visions of a second Holocaust at Iranian hands, ghosts from the 1930s haunt the current foreign
policy debate: in the unlikely event the ongoing negotiations with
Tehran generate an agreement, odds are it will be characterized as
“another Munich” by All the Usual Suspects.

Yet as Pat Buchanan
was the first to point out in the run up to the first Gulf War,
Saddam was no Hitler: the German leader conquered Europe from the
Pyrenees to the Urals, while Saddam’s “empire”
consisted of the tiny enclave of Kuwait. Hitler commanded the mighty
Wehrmacht, while the best of Saddam’s army, the Republican
Guards, melted away before the American assault.

As a historical analogy
for the present moment, the 1930s are a natural reference point for
neoconservative intellectuals, the original authors and most vocal
advocates of the series of Middle Eastern wars that have kept us
preoccupied since the end of the cold war. After all,
neoconservatism was itself born in that tumultuous era of war and
depression, in Alcove 1 at the City College cafeteria, or, at
least, its seeds were sown. World War II was the defining moment of
a whole generation of leftist intellectuals, whose storiedjourney from the anti-Stalinist left to the neoconservative right has been
lovingly chronicled by themselves in endlessmemoirs.

At war’s end,
the neoconservatives abandoned their radical politics and commenced
their Gramscian march through the institutions, the only legacy of
their former political selves a fervent anti-Sovietism. Migrating
from academia to government to the inner reaches of the country’s
national security bureaucracy, the neocons brought with them their
WWII-centric views. For them, it is always 1939, and the new
generation of young neoconlings repeats the lesson learned by rote
from their elders.

There’s just one
problem with this analogy, however: it has the year wrong: it’s
1909 rather than 1939. Instead of resembling the world in the
prelude to World War II, today’s international landscape bears a
striking resemblance to the conditions that existed just prior the
outbreak of World War I.

The Great War, which
ended the old European civilization and brought forth the twin
monsters of Nazism and communism, broke out in what was called with
good reason the “tinderbox of Europe,” the Balkans:
indeed, the words balkanization and balkanize are
synonymous with splintering or shattering. It was there, where
dozens of feuding ethnic and religious groupings contended over
age-old disputes, that the spark landed: the result was a
conflagration that consumed Europe and fueled a fresh inferno a
decade later.

The Balkans of the
present day are clearly located in the Middle East, the scene of a
series of wars and ongoing crises. Here is the regional tinderbox of
the 21st century, where rival ethnicities and religions
intersect in the context of conflicting historical claims. Check out
this description of the Serbian and Russian roles in bringing on World War I, and see if it rings a bell:

“Serbia
emerged from the Balkan conflicts not only with a greatly expanded
territory, but also animated by a vaulting nationalism, which Russia
was happy to egg on. Sazanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, wrote to
[Russian ambassador to Serbia Nicholas] Hartwig: ‘Serbia’s
promised land lies in the territory of present-day Hungary,’
and instructed him to help prepare the Serbians for ‘the
future inevitable struggle.”

That’s Ralph
Raico, whose ironically titled book, Great Wars and Great
Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal, is a joy and an education all
in one. His analysis of how and why the Great War was allowed to
destroy the flower of European civilization is indispensable
reading. Raico locates “the immediate origins of the 1914 war”
in “the twisted politics of the Kingdom of Serbia,”
where ultra-nationalists had overthrown the pro-Austrian royal house
of the Obrenovics and installed the fanatically nationalistic
Karageorgevices on the throne. The Serbs dreamed of creating a
“Greater Serbia,” the borders of which would restore the
nation’s lost greatness and redeem the religious aspects of an
ancient struggle against both Muslim Turks and Catholic Hapsburgs.

It’s interesting
Sazanov refers to Serbia’s “promised land” in his
missive to Hartwig, because his mischievous meddling limns the
present day actions of the US and Israel in the present day crisis
in the real Promised Land. Those Balkan wars the Serbs emerged from,
victorious and stronger, sound very much like thethreewars Israel
fought and won from 1948-73, becoming the strongest military power
in the region. Politically, too, Israeli domestic politics are
dominated by an overweening nationalism that threatens to go “ultra”
with every election. The ideology of “Greater Israel”
energizes the Likud party and its right-wing partners in government,
and expansionism as a policy is simply taken for granted rather than
debated, the only question being how far and fast to expand at any
particular moment. Israel’s present Foreign Minister, Avigdor
Lieberman, is a fanatic ultra-nationalist who once advocated bombing
the Aswan Dam.

The pan-Slavic
nationalists who bore a major share of the responsibility for the
Great War even spoke in some of the same terms as our present day
Israeli nationalists and their supporters. In another missive to
Hartwig, Sazonov averred: “Serbia has only gone through the
first stage of its historic road and for the attainment of her goal
must still endure a terrible struggle in which her whole existence
may be at stake.” How many times have we heard of the
“existential threat” Israel faces in Iran? The very
existence of the Jewish state is said to be at terrible risk –
unless the Iranian “threat” is eliminated.

Of course, no
historical analogy is exact, and the Triple Entente isn’t
exactly NATO – but it’s close enough. This time Russia
is on the other, non-Western side, but the general outlines of the
conflict between the two power blocs are very similar. The Entente,
consisting of France, Russia, and Great Britain, had the Triple
Alliance outgunned. Germany’s allies – Austria, the
Ottoman Turks, and the Italians – were all militarily weak and
unreliable. The NATO powers, combined with the US, have no military
rivals, and Iran is a third-rate military power paired with two
rather unreliable and relatively weak allies, Russia and Syria.

As in World War I,
where the US was lured into supporting another country’s –
England’s – war, so in the present context the US is
being pushed into a war for the sake of our ally, Israel. And the
propaganda campaign is just as extensive, and dubious, as the one
that preceded our armed intervention in the Great War: Iran’s
alleged secret nuclear weapons program is the contemporary
equivalent of Belgian babies impaled on bayonets.

The Middle East awaits
its Archduke Francis Ferdinand moment, a catalytic event that will
plunge the region into war – and, perhaps, drag much of the
world into the abyss. The tinderbox is dry enough so that any spark
has the potential get out of control, and engulf us all. Syria is in
the midst of a civil war, a death match that can only end with one
survivor; the US military is poised and ready to strike in the
Persian Gulf, with the Iranians on constant edge. Draconian
sanctions are in place against Iran, and this virtual blockade is a
major tripwire that could easily provoke armed conflict. The Serbs
of the present day – the Israelis – are bound and
determined to throw a monkey wrench into the peace talks with Iran,
and some Sarajevo-like incident would serve their interests all too
well.

World War I destroyed
liberalism’s best hopes, and birthed the collectivist horrors
that turned the 20th century into an orgy of blood and
terror. As we prepare to reenact the Great War on Middle Eastern
terrain, one needn’t be Nostradamus to anticipate a similar
result.

IMHO ,Lenin explanation for the WWI is better than one quoted by Raimondo.It was imperialism then and today which provoked wars.But what happen now is more strange because if in 1914 Germany,with her allies was a danger for French,England imperialism today Iran ,Syria were not danger for anyone,a war is more stupid than whenever and no one sees sees any possible gainings.It seems that it is only Israelo-US hubris ,arrogance,the need for an enemy to explain military budgets and propaganda of the good intentions of "the free world" in head with US (the article of Buchanan from yesterday was an example).

Generalissimo X

this is a really interesting piece here. i've said for at least 6 or 7 years now that the middle east would experience it's "arch duke moment" just around 100 years after the last one. it'll be some seemingly random event that sends the world into flames, just like WWI. while 100 years ago it seems that through ego, stupidity, and even some haphazard historical events led to the great war, it'll be essentially the same thing. the cia aka al qaeda is now the new "black hand" and i'm sure a major conflageration is on the horizon. the war pigs are at the trough with their knives and forks to feed on the profits of destruction. damn them all.

I have no beef with Raico's argument against "great men" (of statism). But blaming Russia and Serbia for the Great War when it was clearly the fault of Austria and Germany is just foolish, not to mention wrong.

John

It was the English pigs who started WW1. They had the Lusitania (a passenger ship) carrying thousands of pounds of explosives that made it a legal target. The English are pigs, ask any Catholic Irishman.

"the 1930s are a natural reference point for neoconservative intellectuals"

To call Neocons "intellectuals" is to conflate intelligence with cunning and wisdom with duplicity.

What saddens me so is that there is no need for the coming human tragedy, Israel has been grudgingly accepted as a nation-state by her non-Jewish neighbors. Let the Palestinians have a home and much of the tension would subside overnight. Most people the world over are too busy trying to make a decent life for themselves and their loved ones to give one whit about what someone else does in their own house. But some can't leave well enough alone. As Mom said, "if you go looking for trouble, you'll find it."

Not used to such poor analysis from you, Mr. Raimondo. Even Federico Fellini's analysis in 'E La Nave Va' is closer to reality than your article.
You have overlooked two crucial events that have lead to WWI. First, the Berlin Congress in 1878, that granted Austria-Hungary the administration of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and its outright annexation by the Viennese imperialists in 1908. Without those two events, and without the outrage represented by a parade of force on June 28th, Sarajevo might never have happened.
To say that Serbian territorial aspirations against Hungarians have contributed to spark the war is at least dishonest.
By overlooking the two events I mentioned, you are failing to understand that as much as American Evangelicals are heirs of the puritan revolution led by Oliver Cromwell in England, the neocons and the progressive humanitarians are heirs of Viennese imperialism. That said the crime Princip committed is to have shot a pregnant woman. There is a great irony in the way the Black Hand ended. Shot at one Emperor to be, shot by a would be Emperor.
Epic fail, Justin.

RVuckov

Excellent commentary in capsule of events leading to WWI in my opinion.
There is an excellent book of Vladimir Dedier: 'The Road To Sarajevo'
for the students of the Balkan history and related to the WWI.
Also there is Rebecca West's: "Black Lamb and Grey Falcon" as references among many others.

That ultimatum, which was closely followed by Austria's declaration of war, is similar, in its essence, to the Rambouillet "Agreement" of 1999, used as a pretext to launch the Kosovo War.

Hrebeljanovic

Let's get it straight: In Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, next to each other, for some centuries, lived these peoples: Catholic Croats, Sephardi Jews, Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Slavs. There were no Austrians nor Hungarians. However, some Austro-Hungarian Archduke Ferdinand thought he should rule that land because he is entitled to rule over lower class(untermensh) peoples. A great hero and a great patriot, Gavrilo Princip decided to kill the foreign oppressor – and lost his life over it, just like our forefathers decided to kill and free our nation from the English rule.

Justin, you owe your readers the explanation for the "the flower of European civilization" . What exactly does that mean?

Generalissimo X

princip a hero? you're a joke. he was a monster that set off a war that killed millions. and for what? some loser non-state serbia croatia or whatever you balkan jokes call your lands every other decade could be "independent". to compare princip, a useless radical pawn to george washington is a disgrace.

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].